Personally I consider "6" to be a score for an "average" game. Anything that gets less than 6 means it has some glaring problems in at least one aspect of the game. Games that are fun but very buggy are unlikely to score any higher than 6 for example, and would usually easily score in the 4-5 range. Another thing to consider is that if we're reviewing big-budget games, very few would ever be released if they aren't up to a standard of 6, because it would be a waste of the publishers money. They'd rather can the project, fire the designers and forget the whole thing. Or possibly try and get another company to rescue it, although as we've seen that strategy can be a waste of time like what happened with DNF (I think they only attempted it due to brand recognition and an easy cash-in). Having said that, getting a score of 8 is fairly hard, and 8.5 or higher is uncommon, with 9 being quite rare and 10s are pretty much completely subjective (but also effectively mean no noticeable bugs, and excellent attention paid to all aspects of the game world such as graphics, sounds, controls, UI, story, AI, re-playability, etc). Having said all that, I gave BE 7/10. UI needs some work, AI needs a lot of work (I despair that it's ever going to be resolved to our satisfaction, given the length of time they've had to work on CiV). Mid to late game bogs down and it's lacking a real 'soul', but the fundamentals are there and I've not had any real performance bugs to speak of and only minor gameplay bugs.